Now some officers are suggesting that some Res Arty Batteries/Regiments convert to 81mm mortars. The reasoning being that fire control, FSCC functions etc are the same. As well the 81 is easier to man and deploy. This again goes to prove that many officers (and some on this forum) don't have an understanding of the functions of the Artillery. Of all the combat arms, the Artillery is the most misused and least understood. Other than his sig, the Coy Comd is should always accompanied by his FOO, and the BC of the support Bty is always with the Bn Comd. Why is that?

As to converting to 81s, this would be short sighted and unwise. First, the infantry would lose their organic fire support, and secondly, the 81 doesn't have the range or power to fulfill the role and function mandated the Arty.

Ubique

If I recall correctly, under the proposed restructure, Reg F Infantry Bns (3 PPCLI has already disbanded theirs) are losing their mortar platoons and pioneer. The Arty and Engrs will be tasked to provide these assets to the Battle Group Comd as required. Similar as the Bde Comd has always allocated a BC and FOO party, Armd Sqn, AD assets, etc.

IIRC, the Arty Regt is going to be converted into the following: 1 x M109 bty, 1 x Mor Bty (12 Mortars or 16?), 1 x TA Bty, 1 x HQ & Svcs Bty. It may have another bty that would be LG1, however, I seem to recall a discussion about the Regts losing this capability as well. Anyone know?

I haven't heard any Res F units being converted to 81 mm Mortar. In fact I've heard the Res F will be beefed up to provide a more robust artillery capability. This includes the provision of an M109 Bty/LFA for the Reserves to man. Does this sound familiar RCA?

I agree with RCA that the benefits of Artillery on the modern battlefield are not given their just due. However, from the CLS's (arty guy) standpoint the possibility of participating in a modern war is alot less than the possibility of participating in a peace support operations where the CF will be required to operate under specific ROEs and ever round fired by indirect fire weapons will be observed by a CNN reporter. Hence, a greater emphasis on TA capability and precision weapons. Missiles anyone?

It's an interesting discussion and I meant to post something a couple of days ago but 9er Domestic has me working my fingers to the bone.

There was some discussion many years ago with replacing the 81 mm mortars with the 120 mm but I only heard the rumours.

I agree with your comments about units becoming very clumbersome with the different batteries and each role they have. As an aside, I believe the CF missed an opportunity by only purchasing enough LG1 for the Reg F. It simply added another weapon delivery system to the overall weapon arsenal that gunners must train on. It would have been good to outfit all the Res F Arty Regiments, thereby allowing the use of Res F units for augmentation purposes.

Chimo!

As to making a Res Bty a 109 bty, oh yes I 've heard that one before. It sounds nice and exotic to go SP, but for every rd fired would means hours of maintaince. Gunner, it seems somethings never change and we know which Res Regt would get the 109s , don't we. It'd be nice for recruiting, but the unit would end up like 30 Fd, looks pretty, but never fires live.

The thought of moving to 3 different type batteries is like being a jack of all trades and master of none. At least the Russians had it right when it came to standization. If we were to move to different waepon systems, it is better to do it at the Regt level as opposed to Bty level

Ubique

I think it's worth exploring the idea of dividing responsibilities along functional arm lines (black hats drive the tanks and LAVs; gunners run all types of tubes; engineers deal with all aspects of armoured, field, general support, and pioneer tasks, etc).

Using that as an excuse to downsize the traditional functional capabilities is a risk. Move things, don't replace them.

I would also see such a move as a first step toward American style specialization. Armoured and Artillery trades would become collections of disticly different specialties. How long before we would see a Mortarman MOC or an APC Crewman MOC? This would be a step back, not forward.

Chimo!